Bille August directed this Rafael Yglesias adaptation of the 1862 classic by Victor Hugo (1802-1885) about the quest of Inspector Javert to capture escaped convict Jean Valjean, originally an honest man who was jailed for stealing a single… MoreBille August directed this Rafael Yglesias adaptation of the 1862 classic by Victor Hugo (1802-1885) about the quest of Inspector Javert to capture escaped convict Jean Valjean, originally an honest man who was jailed for stealing a single loaf of bread to feed the family of his starving sister. This new interpretation of Hugo's epic begins with Valjean (Liam Neeson), released after 20 years of cruelties and hard labor, reporting for parole in Dijon. Stopping at a bishop's house, he's treated with respect, but even so, he steals silverware, flees, and is captured. However, the bishop says the silverware was a gift, proving Valjean's innocence by giving him two silver candlesticks. Valjean is free, but the bishop asks him to treat others with equal kindness. By 1822, Valjean has risen to mayor of the village of Vigau, where he also maintains a successful factory. Joining the local police, Inspector Javert (Geoffrey Rush) is suspicious of Valjean's identity and eventually recognizes him as a former convict, but Javert has no proof when he carries his accusations to Paris. Valjean develops a relationship with Fantine (Uma Thurman), who lost her factory job because of local attitudes about her illegitimate daughter. The starving Fantine turns to prostitution, is arrested and tortured by Javert, and becomes ill. As she dies, Valjean promises to raise her daughter Cosette. Focusing on Valjean's life with Cosette (Claire Danes), the story is set amid the action of the July 1832 Revolution, a time when Cosette falls in love with a militant student, Marius (Hans Matheson). On the banks of the Seine, Valjean and Javert have their final confrontation. ~ Bhob Stewart, Rovi

The book is great, read it before you see the movie. Then you'll see that this film could have been so much better than it was.

Jay Hutchinson

The only truly interesting plot line is the constant conflict between Neeson and Rush, both of whom were convincing in their roles. Everything else about the… MoreThe only truly interesting plot line is the constant conflict between Neeson and Rush, both of whom were convincing in their roles. Everything else about the movie, however, is rather boring and mediocre in quality.

Curtis Lilly

Loved the cast. Leam Neeson isn't usually a favorite of mine, but his character was so darn likable you have to love him, sort of like Will Smith in 7… MoreLoved the cast. Leam Neeson isn't usually a favorite of mine, but his character was so darn likable you have to love him, sort of like Will Smith in 7 Pounds. I feel very drawn to selfless characters lately, maybe because I suck. Anyways, Uma Thurman is hot and dirty looking, and her role is short lived. Geoffry Rush is a perfect mirror image of Neeson's character, and absolutely belevable as usual. Great stuff.

Christian C

A bit overdone, I think. Liam Neeson was the only strong performance. Uma Thurman was just too much. Sadly, even Geoffrey Rush didn't sell.… MoreA bit overdone, I think. Liam Neeson was the only strong performance. Uma Thurman was just too much. Sadly, even Geoffrey Rush didn't sell. Nevertheless, it has pretty, authentic locations and costumes -- so that's worth something.

Not a bad adaption. I have a feeling that the book would be much too long for me to enjoy. Same for the older versions, Both Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush were… MoreNot a bad adaption. I have a feeling that the book would be much too long for me to enjoy. Same for the older versions, Both Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush were fantastic. I just love Liam Neeson. Dont expect too much and I think youll find it enjoyable.

Jason Spencer

Really great actors in a pretty good adaptation of the story.

Red Lats

Stories of unjust persecution are always intriguing. What a justice system where stealing a loaf of bread is a lifetime prison sentence! I had to read Les… MoreStories of unjust persecution are always intriguing. What a justice system where stealing a loaf of bread is a lifetime prison sentence! I had to read Les Miserables in French in high school, and never quite understood it, so the details are interesting. I thought the acting was well done. Liam Neeson does great work, and Geoffrey Rush is fun to hate.

Jennifer D

I got a tad disinterested during the middle, but it picked back up again, luckily. Neeson and Rush are outstanding, as if I actually have to mention that.… MoreI got a tad disinterested during the middle, but it picked back up again, luckily. Neeson and Rush are outstanding, as if I actually have to mention that. Having never read Les Miserables, I don't know about the adaption, but considering what a brick that book is, I'd say it was probably done pretty well.
Overall it could have been *a lot* worse. I do mean that.

Leigh Ryan

Much more dramatic then the 1978 version. I like this one much better. I really do need to read the novel though so I can compare which stays closest to the… MoreMuch more dramatic then the 1978 version. I like this one much better. I really do need to read the novel though so I can compare which stays closest to the book. Wow, I just realize that I still have to see two more versions to make a complete analysis. I knew I needed to see the original but I didn't know there was one also done in the 1950's. Every twenty years another one comes out. Geez...

Cameron Johnson

Or as I like to call this version, "Liamisérables". I don't know about y'all, but I think that it makes perfect sense for them to make the… MoreOr as I like to call this version, "Liamisérables". I don't know about y'all, but I think that it makes perfect sense for them to make the Jean Valjean character illiterate in this adaptation, because with all of the action Liam Neeson has to do, he has no time to read. Man, looking at Liam Neeson, Captain Barbossa from "Pirates of the Caribbean" and the killer bride from "Kill Bill", this adaptation of classic French literature, of all films, assembled quite the cast of action stars, and it didn't even realized that it was doing it, because all of those cool roles came to these people later on, with the exception of Liam Neeson, because he's always been cool. Oh well, this film still has quite the cast of talents, yet that didn't stop it from slipping up at the box office. Granted, it grossed just a smidge over $14 million, though considering the production on this film, and the fact that no one is disclosing the budget of this film, perhaps out of embarassment, I'd imagine that's not enough. That's a shame, because although this film isn't especially good, I still liked it just fine, even if it doesn't quite have the action you'd expect from looking at the cast, only a lively production, compelling story and really good acting, so, yeah, it's something of a disappointment. All sarcasm aside, as enjoyable as this film ultimately is, its having, as Elvis would put it, "a little less action, a little more conversation", is the least of its worries.
The development segment of the film is a bit of mess, because before the key stories of Jean Valjean and Fantine go entirely established and sewn together, they're juggled rather sloppily, as the film will spend too much time focusing upon and fleshing out one story, then suddenly switch focus onto the other rather awkardly and certainly unevenly. Uneven story focus is only present, or at least at its worst, during the first 30 minutes or so, so it's not like it's a huge issue, yet it drop a big hint that we're not likely to face a terribly comfortably handled adaptation of Victor Hugo's classic. 134 minutes is a generally hefty length, and if trimmed in the right places, this conceptually sprawling story could fit that runtime comfortably, yet when it finally comes down to execution, the final effort is tight to a fault, rarely, if ever to the point of rushing through a whole lot of crucial material in one sloppy dash, but decidedly to where exposition takes a blow. This story relies on most everything being fully fleshed out, and when it comes to this film adaptation, flesh-out is adequate enough for you get a reasonably comfortable feel for the story and characters, yet there's still not quite enough flesh-out for you get all that firm of a grip on the substance, to where even major turns of events that change the course of the film's progression fail to go all that firmly fleshed out, and thus come off feeling almost like throwaway moments, which of course renders these major moments' going on to affect the progression of the film considerably to feel a bit awkward, thus leaving the film to lose a bit of steam and feel a smidge uneven in focus, especially when we a reach a somewhat forced feeling ten-year time jump at around the halfway mark. I can appreciate Rafael Yglesias' efforts at tightening up Hugo's vision, partially becaus Yglesias does a generally competent job with his abridging, yet there are plenty of key elements that go lost in translation, which not only hurts this film as an adaptation of very fleshed-out source material, but as a film itself, as it moves along too smoothly for you to gain all that firm of a grip on things. This script's tight-to-a-fault structure leaves the final product to fall into underwhelmingness, with the aspect that secures the film's being ultimately underwhelming being Bille August's direction, which may be reasonably inspired, yet not quite inspired enough, to where it lands all that firm of a bite, thus leaving all of the faults in the script to go more pronounced and the film to fall short of its potential. However, while I do wish that this film succeeded more at fulfilling its worthy ambitions, the final product still comes out hitting just as much, if not more than missing, and hitting just sufficiently enough for you to find yourself generally engaged, if not rather entertained.
As I said earlier, even though they haven't disclosed the film's budget, just a few bumps past $14 million at the box office doesn't quite sound like it was enough, as this film is definately something a production, and has the slick production value to back that up. Now, with all of my talk about how this film likely cost more than what it made, I can't see the production designs being a terrible drain on finances, as the film's production designs aren't especially elaborate, yet they remain strong and cleverly handled, as they set a feel for both the time and setting of an unfortunate yet hopeful environment, and escort you deep enough in this world to find a firm feel for the land. What further pulls you into the story is, of course, the story itself, for although Victor Hugo's worthy original text goes faultily executed, this tale remains nonetheless worthy, with depth and livliness that's not always translated as well as it should be, yet goes translated well enough for you to get a general feel for the strength of the story, and feel a default degree of intrigue because of it. What intensifies this intrigue are the things that are done right in Rafael Yglesias' writing and Bille August's direction, as I went into this film expecting a bit of fat around the edges, and definately a fair bit of slowness, yet what I ended up finding was a film that may be too tight for its own good, yet goes written tightly enough to keep from losing too much steam, and it helps that August puts enough spirit - complimented by lively, if a bit conventional score work by Basil Poledouris - into this film to keep it from descending to terribly slow, if it's even all that slow to begin with. August doesn't quite bite as firmly as he should as director, and thus the film loses a bit of steam, yet it rarely slows down all that much, let alone dulls down, and often even hits as high as genuinely entertaining, if not rather compelling, with the latter probably being more along the lines of the doing of the compelling performances, which are to be expected, considering this cast. Only so much material is provided for our performers, yet they all play their parts as well as they can and as well as you would expect them to, because with this being a cast comprised of such start talents as Liam Neeson, Geoffrey Rush, Uma Thurman and Claire Danes, expect the performances to hold charisma and memorable depth, as well as distinct color that defines the individual roles and fleshes them out as well as they can be fleshed out with this expository writing this faulty. Considering all of the talent behind this project, as well as the quality of the source material, the final product should have hit harder, yet when it's all said and done, while I didn't particularly walk away especially satisfied, I still found myself more engaged, if not rather entertained, than not, and just enough to walk away with enough to remember.
Overall, the problem with this film is that it is perhaps too tight for its own good, not necessarily to where this should-be sprawling story feels slapdashed, but to where exposition goes diluted and quite a few major turn of events and focus shifts come off as a bit uneven, and with these faults in Rafael Yglesias' screenplay going pronounced by Bille August's barely bitey direction, the final product comes out falling short of its potential, yet still standing as decent, boasting nifty production designs and a fair amount of worthiness within the original story left intact, partially because of the inspired moments in Yglesias' writing and August's direction, and largely because of the underwritten yet distinctly charismatic performances within this star cast of talents, who help in making 1998's "Liamisér-I mean, "Les Misérables" a sometimes entertaining, often engaging and ultimately enjoyable take on Victor Hugo's classic, even if it isn't quite as strong as it should have been.
2.5/5 - Fair